"We came to the conclusion that it is better to avoid external wars, so we went home and took the strife with us....We fight each other within the limits of the law and the constitution, and we are inclined to think of democracy as a chronic state of mitigated war. We are far from being at peace with ourselves: on the contrary, we hate and fight each other because we have succeeded on introverting war

....We still labour under the unwholesome delusion that we should be at peace within ourselves.

...Our order would be perfect if only everybody could direct his aggressiveness inwards, into his own psyche. Unfortunately, our religious education prevents us from doing this, with its false promises of an immediate peace within.

...We psychologists have learned, through long and painful experience, that you deprive a man of his best resource when you help him to become sufficiently aware of them and to start a conscious conflict within himself. In this way the complex becomes a focus of life....It is surely better to know that your worst enemy is right there in your own heart.
Man's instincts are ineradicable–therefore a state of perfect peace is unthinkable. Moreover, peace is uncanny because it breeds war. True democracy is a highly psychological institution which takes account of human nature as it is and makes allowances for the necessity of conflict within its own national boundaries."

Well I was expecting Jung to be controversial, but damn.

Certainly not saying I agree with all of it, but it does put forward quite a few ideas: introverted mitigated war being waged through politics, religion promising immediate peace v the struggle of psychology, and that "peace breeds war" via the lack of control of humankind's violent nature.